Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
What is frustrating in multiplayer games, is the fact that early leads and lucky starting positions/villages and fortunate early wars kill off not only the civs, but the players. Another fact, not to confront patriotic Americans, or Brits for that sake, that their civlizations came about 1776 and 1215.
Here Firaxis, and Lead Designer Soren Johnson cann kill two birds with one stone (read - kller application) along the lines of his winning formula.
1/3 old
1/3 improvements
1/3 new
I will now come with a bid on how to include new civilizations later in the game, keep early losing players longer in mplayer games and finally to make the evolution of civs more dynamic and less static over time.
In order to achieve all this, what old should be added to the fame?
I suggest a "History of the World " solution, where the 3 largest CIVS are allowed to break up through Civil wars, general deterioration, secessesions plague and so on. This could be the black plague, the plague that killed the Mayas, American Revolutionary War and so on. In order to compensate the empire civ for that period, points are not made for the endgame, but summed up for each period in an epoch subtotal.
Example:
The Roman Empire, seceded into the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires, of which the Western soonly fell 450 AD, and Byzantine 1453.
Of these, the Western Roman Empire generated later civs such as the French, the Iberian, the British and Italian City States, that grew in influence and eroded the power base of the Byzantines through crusades. Simultaneously, the rise of the Turks and the Ottomans eroded the Byzantines from the other side, and the islamic expansion of the Arabs, almost engulfed Spain and France as well. Later, Spain, France and UK dominated the Americas and colonization until the mid 1860s, alongside the Byzantine offspring Russia, where some European powers, Japan and America redefined themselves through national reunification wars, spurring new tech and organization.
As such, Italy, Germany, Japan and USA, evolved as challengers.
WWI and then WW2 posed these new challengers against UK and France, Spain long lost to US influence, bringing USA and Soviet to the limelight, with India, and suddenly China and the Arab League as challengers.
This means, that CIV4 could revamp the game dynamics in a relatively realistic and playable dynamic that would remove the unfun of losing early in mplayer game, and leaving the other guys to rot on their unsweet victory.
How could this be done?
Immanuel Wallerstein wrote about hegemonists of the international system, in which they could design institutions at their bidding for global control.
CIV4 could have the following periods, representing :
Early City states (5000 BC - 1000 BC), 200 year turns, few settlers -20 t
Ancient (1000 BC-0 AD) Greece, Persia, Rome, Macedonia, Egypt, Carthage
Imperial (0 AD-500 AD) Rome, China, Persia
Dark Ages (500 AD-1000 AD) Byzantines, Arabs, Vikings, France
Medieval Era (1000 AD-1500 AD), Spain, France, Turks
Exploration Century (1500-1600)
Trader Century (1600-1700)
Renaissance Century (1700-1800)
Industrial Century (1800-1900)
Modern Century (1900-2000)
Fate Century (2000-2100)
In order to balance up the underdogs by the turn of each epoch, this could be enforced in several ways, 10 points here.
Explorers, necessary for small players to get new lands fast
World religion, necessary for underdogs to spread fast
World ideology, necessary for revanchist wars like WW1 and WW2
New technology, necessary for revanchist wars like WW1 and WW2
Civil Wars, breaking up civ into two parts, one given eliminated players
Secession of distant colonies from sprawled empires, given eliminated players
trade systems, making it possible for Venice, Dutch and UK to develop
RPG power elements allowed to be given certain underdog player units
Winning criteria change throughout the game, like in history
Again, the key pattern is power, discovery, population
Era specific victory parameters
Early City states: largest/strongest city state formed, most cultivated land
Ancient : largest empire created, largest mapped world, most developed land
Imperial: strongest empire created, farthest known Civ, dominating pop
Dark Ages: largest world religion, farthest conquest, most migrating pop
Medieval Era: strongest world religion, Crusades won, most gold
Exploration Century : largest colonial empire, continents found, most gold
Trader Century: strongest trade empire, new resources found, most trade
Renaissance Century: largest economic power, inventions reached,most trade
Industrial Century: strongest industrial power, Interiormapped, highest mfg
Modern Century: Cold war winner of ideologies, Moon race, highest mfg
Fate century: Ecology disaster survivor power, Planet race, happiest pop.
In addition, there are two everlasting winning criteria in each period, which could be the largest population and most advanced Civ.
Furthermore, for roleplaying purposes, one can grant RPG like features to the CIV as a reward for military victories, discoveries, sciences made, succesful government changes as well as resources controlled (monopolies).
Simplifcations
More so, if Firaxis could abstract settlers/workers and riots in cities, which are all micromanagement unfun, and let cites and infrastructure with farmlands and migration develop naturally,, it would be easier and more fun.
Another part is the city micromanagement, which could change focus to actually running the nation/civs larger decisions. Where you can run palace related activities, the capital, more diplomacy, trade and institution options.
Even government and dynasty setups with characters could be interesting.
CIV4 could lend best practices from Crusader Kings here, on dynasties.
Military stack is another aspect. What if Civ4 just added units into a stack , like a deck of cards, and this unit would perform assymetrically when facing diverse enemy stack combinations. Then all the focus would be to piece together the optimal standing army/stack with limited resources, and let this formation resolve the war with primary and secondary objectives.
For large empires, this would remove some micromanagemenf of fighting formations in complex multiplayers. In fact, most nations military policies is aboutpiecing these stacks together and making alliances, wars and politcal pressure based on these stacks. Another one is military infrastructure, which beyond roads and railroads represents fortifications and storage reserves.
A mlitary reform budget every 200 years to 20 years could make sense here, depending on era, like the Roman military reforms down to the modern ones.
On the top of these stacks, leaders with RPG abilities, could be put to lead these formations, so a fun part would be to balance leaders with stacks.
Tech development should be optionally randomized.
Improvements? with no workers and settlers walking dumbly around, one problem would be eliminated. So is the problem of city management.
No more large masses of widespread military units.
Here Firaxis, and Lead Designer Soren Johnson cann kill two birds with one stone (read - kller application) along the lines of his winning formula.
1/3 old
1/3 improvements
1/3 new
I will now come with a bid on how to include new civilizations later in the game, keep early losing players longer in mplayer games and finally to make the evolution of civs more dynamic and less static over time.
In order to achieve all this, what old should be added to the fame?
I suggest a "History of the World " solution, where the 3 largest CIVS are allowed to break up through Civil wars, general deterioration, secessesions plague and so on. This could be the black plague, the plague that killed the Mayas, American Revolutionary War and so on. In order to compensate the empire civ for that period, points are not made for the endgame, but summed up for each period in an epoch subtotal.
Example:
The Roman Empire, seceded into the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires, of which the Western soonly fell 450 AD, and Byzantine 1453.
Of these, the Western Roman Empire generated later civs such as the French, the Iberian, the British and Italian City States, that grew in influence and eroded the power base of the Byzantines through crusades. Simultaneously, the rise of the Turks and the Ottomans eroded the Byzantines from the other side, and the islamic expansion of the Arabs, almost engulfed Spain and France as well. Later, Spain, France and UK dominated the Americas and colonization until the mid 1860s, alongside the Byzantine offspring Russia, where some European powers, Japan and America redefined themselves through national reunification wars, spurring new tech and organization.
As such, Italy, Germany, Japan and USA, evolved as challengers.
WWI and then WW2 posed these new challengers against UK and France, Spain long lost to US influence, bringing USA and Soviet to the limelight, with India, and suddenly China and the Arab League as challengers.
This means, that CIV4 could revamp the game dynamics in a relatively realistic and playable dynamic that would remove the unfun of losing early in mplayer game, and leaving the other guys to rot on their unsweet victory.
How could this be done?
Immanuel Wallerstein wrote about hegemonists of the international system, in which they could design institutions at their bidding for global control.
CIV4 could have the following periods, representing :
Early City states (5000 BC - 1000 BC), 200 year turns, few settlers -20 t
Ancient (1000 BC-0 AD) Greece, Persia, Rome, Macedonia, Egypt, Carthage
Imperial (0 AD-500 AD) Rome, China, Persia
Dark Ages (500 AD-1000 AD) Byzantines, Arabs, Vikings, France
Medieval Era (1000 AD-1500 AD), Spain, France, Turks
Exploration Century (1500-1600)
Trader Century (1600-1700)
Renaissance Century (1700-1800)
Industrial Century (1800-1900)
Modern Century (1900-2000)
Fate Century (2000-2100)
In order to balance up the underdogs by the turn of each epoch, this could be enforced in several ways, 10 points here.
Explorers, necessary for small players to get new lands fast
World religion, necessary for underdogs to spread fast
World ideology, necessary for revanchist wars like WW1 and WW2
New technology, necessary for revanchist wars like WW1 and WW2
Civil Wars, breaking up civ into two parts, one given eliminated players
Secession of distant colonies from sprawled empires, given eliminated players
trade systems, making it possible for Venice, Dutch and UK to develop
RPG power elements allowed to be given certain underdog player units
Winning criteria change throughout the game, like in history
Again, the key pattern is power, discovery, population
Era specific victory parameters
Early City states: largest/strongest city state formed, most cultivated land
Ancient : largest empire created, largest mapped world, most developed land
Imperial: strongest empire created, farthest known Civ, dominating pop
Dark Ages: largest world religion, farthest conquest, most migrating pop
Medieval Era: strongest world religion, Crusades won, most gold
Exploration Century : largest colonial empire, continents found, most gold
Trader Century: strongest trade empire, new resources found, most trade
Renaissance Century: largest economic power, inventions reached,most trade
Industrial Century: strongest industrial power, Interiormapped, highest mfg
Modern Century: Cold war winner of ideologies, Moon race, highest mfg
Fate century: Ecology disaster survivor power, Planet race, happiest pop.
In addition, there are two everlasting winning criteria in each period, which could be the largest population and most advanced Civ.
Furthermore, for roleplaying purposes, one can grant RPG like features to the CIV as a reward for military victories, discoveries, sciences made, succesful government changes as well as resources controlled (monopolies).
Simplifcations
More so, if Firaxis could abstract settlers/workers and riots in cities, which are all micromanagement unfun, and let cites and infrastructure with farmlands and migration develop naturally,, it would be easier and more fun.
Another part is the city micromanagement, which could change focus to actually running the nation/civs larger decisions. Where you can run palace related activities, the capital, more diplomacy, trade and institution options.
Even government and dynasty setups with characters could be interesting.
CIV4 could lend best practices from Crusader Kings here, on dynasties.
Military stack is another aspect. What if Civ4 just added units into a stack , like a deck of cards, and this unit would perform assymetrically when facing diverse enemy stack combinations. Then all the focus would be to piece together the optimal standing army/stack with limited resources, and let this formation resolve the war with primary and secondary objectives.
For large empires, this would remove some micromanagemenf of fighting formations in complex multiplayers. In fact, most nations military policies is aboutpiecing these stacks together and making alliances, wars and politcal pressure based on these stacks. Another one is military infrastructure, which beyond roads and railroads represents fortifications and storage reserves.
A mlitary reform budget every 200 years to 20 years could make sense here, depending on era, like the Roman military reforms down to the modern ones.
On the top of these stacks, leaders with RPG abilities, could be put to lead these formations, so a fun part would be to balance leaders with stacks.
Tech development should be optionally randomized.
Improvements? with no workers and settlers walking dumbly around, one problem would be eliminated. So is the problem of city management.
No more large masses of widespread military units.
